October 13, 2003

Who kills orchards. I’ve been trying all day to get my mind around this.

US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.

The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad. Local women were yesterday busily bundling together the branches of the uprooted orange and lemon trees and carrying then back to their homes for firewood.

Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed, said: “They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but this is not true. They didn’t capture anything. They didn’t find any weapons.”

Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district.

“They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees,” said one man. Ambushes of US troops have taken place around Dhuluaya. But Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri, a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees, said American officers described what had happened as “a punishment of local people because ‘you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us’.” […]

The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses who did not want to give their names. They said that one American soldier broke down and cried during the operation. When a reporter from the newspaper Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. The same paper quotes Lt Col Springman, a US commander in the region, as saying: “We asked the farmers several times to stop the attacks, or to tell us who was responsible, but the farmers didn’t tell us.”

“I came and called them by their long names, but they did not quiver, they did not hear or answer. They lay dead.”

Iraqi blogger Riverbend discusses the preciousness of palm trees and citrus orchards to desert farmers, and the intense feeling for trees that results.

Juan Cole points out that if we are indeed destroying agriculture in order to punish whole populations for not informing, then we are in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, which specifically prohibits this sort of “collective punishment.” (Commenter “ott”, in the thread following this post at Whiskey Bar, provides the specific Convention passages that apply.)

Teresa, who knows something about growing up in a desert, nailed it in conversation this afternoon. “If I were a child, and remote, powerful strangers came and cut down my trees…I would never again believe that they were the good guys.”

Me, I can’t stop thinking about Ken MacLeod’s point about “giant lizards from another star.”
[08:19 PM]

I have a particular preference for using the text of FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare for issues like this -- it is the official US Army compendium of the international law of war. That means that it is our interpretation of the rules, which can be enforced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

From Chapter 5 -- Civilian Persons

Section III. Provisions Common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories

272. Individual Responsibility, Collective Penalties, Reprisals, Pillage
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

From Chapter 6 -- Occupation

Under Section V. Treatment of Enemy Property:

393. Destruction and Seizure of Property
a. Prohibition.

It is especially forbidden * * * to destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. (HR, art. 23, par. (g).)

b. Occupying Power.

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. (GC, art. 53.)

Under Section VIII. Security of the Occupant: Penal Legislation and Procedure:

448. Penalty for Individual Acts of Inhabitants
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible. (HR, art. 50.) (See also GC, art. 33; par. 272 herein.)

I am sure that there is some JAG Major in Baghdad that signed off on this, and I am not a civilian lawyer, much less a military one. But we have already been cutting it close by taking hostages. These actions will probably be ruled legal by friendly lawyers. But they are tragically stupid.

Buncha damn Iraqi crybabies. First there's that kid with no arms whose bitching and moaning. Now these damned tree huggers. And those stupid Iraqi policemen who got in the way. And, and and...

I am reminded of an article in The New Republic on German nostalgia, or "ostalgia" for the "good old days" of the Stazi and the rest of the fun under Eric Honniger and East Germany; (sure, life sucked, but unemployment there was less than its current 18%, and did it suck THAT BADLY?). I'm starting to think that we're soon going to make a good many Iraqis long for the happier days of Saddam.

Along with torture, and kidnapping FAMILIES of officers we want to capture, and the "accidental" killings of civilians, (not to mention the insane levels of OUR OWN casualties-- coupla hundred dead, coupla THOUSAND wounded), we have NOW seen the light and adopted one of Israel's more intelligent tactics: don't KILL these people. No, no, no-- just arbitrariliy destroy their property and livelihoods. That way, they are not only still around, but will hate us FOREVER.

The worst part of all is that I happen to live in the City where the first wave of retaliatory suicide bombings will take place. If this signifies how this nation conducts itself, its just a matter of time. We are planting the seeds of anti-American hatreds even as we are unseating plants. Am I angry? No-- that's just not strong enough. Not even close.

We are not in the midst of one our nation's finest hours. We all knew it, too: Republicans "don't do humanitarian"; man, do I resent the insinuation BY ANYONE that this adventurist folly was EVER about "liberating Iraq". (Perhaps at least this collective punishment insanity clinches the end of that bullshit proposition.)

Damn good thing we refuse to participate in that International Criminal Court.

Trees are more valuable in the Middle East than most Americans can understand.

In Biblical times, the cedars of Lebanon were literal wealth. People in Roman Egypt valuated the woodwork (door frames and doors, window frames) of a mud-brick home separately, left the woodwork as legacies in their wills, removed it when the house was destroyed. Robbers specialized in stealing the woodwork.

Even today, when shipping is less costly and mechanical irrigation possible, people don92t build in wood in the Middle East: concrete has replaced the traditional mud-brick in modernized nations like Jordan and Iraq. (Concrete and mud brick structures also stay cool in the summer.)

But we Americans came as settlers to a continent literally covered (at least in the East and Pacific Northwest) with trees, and cut them down at will. Even now the anti-environmental mentality is "we can always grow more."

I couldn't say anything in my own weblog about the trees because I was too grieved and ashamed. This is a horror. We've messed with their water and irrigation systems, and we've cut down their trees, and we've deprived them of the electricity that runs pumps and fans and the occasional air conditioner.

I don't know how to explain how bad this is. It's too basic. It goes back too far.

Olive and palm and citrus trees take a long time to get going -- years and years -- but once they're established, they bear without having to be watered all the time, the way small short-term crops do. They may need some water, depending on your area. But it's not the same. Not at all.

Trees are shade in a country where shade is seriously important. People from cooler areas, or from humid climates, don't fully appreciate shade. Dry air doesn't hold heat the way that wet air does. High summer daytime temperatures are debilitating and can be life-threatening, but if you can get out of the direct sun, things are a lot better. The only thing I can compare it to is the difference between wind chill and no wind chill when the absolute temperature is below freezing.

...I'm not doing it justice. I can't explain it. But I know that no kid who saw us do that will ever think we're the good guys.

That's not even getting into the matter of our screwing with the water supply. Between knocking down trees and messing with water, we're making ourselves about as beloved in Iraq as we would be if we invaded New England and the Maritimes and blew up all their lighthouses.

Sickening. Especially in contrast to the cheery "form letter from soldiers" picture of the occupation.

But I have to ask: Is there the slightest chance that this story is fabricated? It sounds like such an *amazingly* stupid thing to do, perhaps the *exactly stupidest* thing to do if you were trying to win hearts and minds over there, that I have to wonder if it might be BS, planted to cultivate outrage.

In any case, this calls for some independent follow up. If it happened, someone's military career is way over.

I'm so ashamed ...so ashamed of our soul sick country. I wish I could sleep. What a hell it is to be awake while most are asleep to the rhythm of the war drum. And the most brutal fact is "they" (whoever "they" are) think they are in the right. Machanical reptoids? indeed, but how can that be if they are galvanized by their moralistic memes?
This must truly be the "ill earth war" a terrible bane that resembles the Silmarillion's Nirnaeth
Arnoediad or Battle of Unnumbered Tears. Fuck Jesus and robert byrd...I weep.

"Is there the slightest chance that this story is fabricated? It sounds like such an *amazingly* stupid thing to do, perhaps the *exactly stupidest* thing to do if you were trying to win hearts and minds over there, that I have to wonder if it might be BS, planted to cultivate outrage."

Stupid like outing a long-time elite covert CIA agent specializing in WMD, in order to slap down her husband and intimidate others?

Stupid like launching a war, based in large part on blindly taking the word of Ahmad Chalabi despite the advice of the wiser folks at State and CIA who knew him to be an unreliable con man?

Stupid like not securing six massive Iraqi ammo dumps, for months and months, so that guerillas can freely use the explosives for car bombs and other attacks?

Stupid like securing the oil facilities but not securing the intelligence and other ministries, allowing important records to be destroyed?

But I have to ask: Is there the slightest chance that this story is fabricated? It sounds like such an *amazingly* stupid thing to do, perhaps the *exactly stupidest* thing to do if you were trying to win hearts and minds over there, that I have to wonder if it might be BS, planted to cultivate outrage.

I can't directly answer that, but PBS's Frontline recently did a show on the situation in Iraq. It showed some US soldiers systematically destroying a car by running over it twice with a tank. This was as punishment for looting. Some of the soldiers laughed as they did this.

I think the incident took place not long after the fall of Baghdad (but after the first few days, when looting was ignored).

According to the show's narrator, the car's owner was a taxi driver. The car was his livelihood.

I didn't see any indication of collective punishment, but it seems like part of the same pattern as destroying orchards.

The show made the point that soldiers are not trained to be policemen. Their job is to kill people and break things, not "to protect and to serve".

Bringing in Turkish troops signals we are no longer "Nation Building". This site to a sober analysis of US/Turkish goals.

Apparently the original plan was to quickly create a client state: Chalabi airlifted in to easily assume leadership of a gratefully liberated Iraq. A massive influx of aid would assure stability and free substantial American forces for redeployment.

The administration's cascade of miscalculation has left large parts of Iraq in turmoil. We need more troops in Iraq with few re-inforcements available. Bringing in Turkish forces, whose entry will almost certainly enflame currently quiescent Turkish Kurdistan, must seem a desperate gamble even to the optimists whose blunders have brought us to this point.

If Turkish entry widens the conflict we abandon the chance of political stability. We can only share the occupation of Iraq with the Turks, along with the oilfields. That the administration still hopes to find further uses for our forces in the region seems incredible.

Between the impending Turkish entry and the story of our brutal reprisals in Dhuluaya I'm reeling with horror and terror for the future. I don't know how many more illusions I can have shattered: we are in this war for oil and we truly do plan further operations to liberate the people oilfields of the region.

It takes donning a tinfoil hat to imagine how this scenario, if it occurs, can permit the reelection of George Bush. Yet this war is largely pointless if he is not re-elected, and no-one can doubt the President's determined focus on that goal.

The described actions are wrongheaded, contrary to internal policy and international law, and evil. Of course, this "administration" hasn't been right-headed yet, and they've flouted internal policy and law and are in the process of trying to make the U.S. (or at least themselves) immune from international law. Guess they're going for a lock on evil. Or should that have the lovely Southern fundamentalist ministerial pronunciation, in which "evil" can be a seven-syllable word?

I want to be proud of my country. I want to walk through Washington looking at the monuments and feel my chest swell, and have a tear come to my eye. I want to read all of those great phrases from my civics text about fairness, government of the people, and liberty and justice for all, and know that they mean something, and are a fair depiction of reality.

God damn these people to hell for taking that pride away from us. May they pay ten thousand fold for what they have done to the Constitution, and our national ideals. The next time they wrap themselves in the flag, may the spirits of the American Heroes I grew up believing in stop their evil hearts.

I want to be proud of my country. I want to walk through Washington looking at the monuments and feel my chest swell, and have a tear come to my eye. I want to read all of those great phrases from my civics text about fairness, government of the people, and liberty and justice for all, and know that they mean something, and are a fair depiction of reality.

God damn these people to hell for taking that pride away from us. May they pay ten thousand fold for what they have done to the Constitution, and our national ideals. The next time they wrap themselves in the flag, may the spirits of the American Heroes I grew up believing in stop their evil hearts.

Of all the idiocy and recklessness that have been a part of this fiasco in Iraq this is by far the worse. How can anybody possibly expect this to do anything but inflame the masses? This is evil on a grand scale. What is wrong with these people? Last week they say that they're stopping the distribution of food that many Iraqis rely on. And now they're also bulldozing their farms. Are they supposed to feel more grateful to the Americans when they're starving?
Unspeakable

It wasn't so long ago that the Turks ruled Iraq. So really, what we're doing is simply restoring that country to its true owners. And the bulldozing of orchards, sacking of cities, and destruction of infrastructure?

Why, we're only returning it to them in just the state they left it, back a century ago.

Paul made the comment that this "sounds almost Biblical in its wrongness." Well. . .

Deuteronomy 20
19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:
20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for fruit, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

I planted a lime, a kumquat and a grapefruit this year, and though of fruit bearing size from the nursery, it will be a long while before there's any decent crop to speak of. Our blood orange has been getting larger every year, but has yet to gain a single blossom. The nursery said this is normal, and means it will produce more once it has achieved full size, but that won't be for years.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I may not have been a poor kid growing up, but the lemon tree in the back yard was not just source of nice drinks for summer but the thing that nursed me through colds and flu the rest of the year.

You get rid of the dates and lemons, you get rid of the cough syrup. You get rid of the cough syrup, you have a lot more already malnourished kids dead come winter.

Lets' see. It's in the Independent - not where I turn for accurate news. After all, they publish Fisk. The reporting is somewhat sensationalized. The last Iraq issue that generated this much angst on Electrolite was the museum looting, most of which turned out not to be true.

Of course, not all of us share the contempt for the Independent, or for Robert Fisk, that are articles of faith in warblogger land.

Like many other people I was put off by Fisk's famously whiny "I understood why they were beating me up" piece. But as certain parts of blogdom increasingly demonized him, I started making it a point to read his stuff, and what do you know, he turns out to be a smart, sharp reporter and a darn sight more demonstrably courageous than most of the big noises of warblogdom.

So while (I reiterate for the second time) all reports from a war in progress should be regarded with caution, I'm afraid that the fact that the report appeared in a paper that publishes Robert Fisk doesn't really make me breathless with additional suspicion.

Granted, this is a very nasty thing (unless Patrick Cockburn, who has a reputation to keep up as one of the sharpest commentators on the Middle East around, has decided to blow it all at once).

However, isn't this rather unimportant compared with the large-scale killing of protesters, for instance?

Incidentally, what processes does the United States military have for putting people who commit war crimes on trial, and is the public permitted to know about them? (I know that in the old South African military war crimes were pretty much winked at because they had total control of the press, for instance.)

Following up on Fox Molder's point from yesterday: The "domino theory" could still work; we have created anarchy in Iraq and there are signs that it could spread to Turkish Kurdistan and to Syria (in which regard see Perle's comments that an American intervention against Damascus is not out of the question) -- next we can move on to Iran and eventially Saudi Arabia and the religious Right's goal of total destabilization of the Mideast (in preparation for the Rapture) will be well on its way to fruition.

Killing protestors is bad, but it's hardly a novelty in Iraq. And while in the short term, it may be worse, in the long term, killing the orange and palm trees is going to leave more emotional scars. A tree lives longer than a human, especially in this corner of the world, and years down the road, it's hard for someone sunburned and thirsty to not look at a treestump and hate the people responsible.

[I find I am shocked beyond belief by this. Even on a third reading I am still shocked. So, here's the raven, cawing.]

If this, and the various other reports of anti-Iraqi violence on the part of US troops are true, probably the US commanders are failing to keep the troops from taking out their resentments on the Iraqi. Dear gods, I hope not. But it would not be so surprising. There aren't enough troops, so they aren't being rotated home very often. (I haven't followed the details of this, and sorted out the reports, so I don't exactly how this is working.) They are a semi-permanent garrison in hostile country and it's awfully tempting for them to take it out on the Iraqi.

Fix this? Well, we could go to the UN, hat in hand for more peacekeepers, or start a draft, or just bail. Just bailing is looking more and more likely.

I intend to write el presidente a letter containing only the phrase "Deuteronomy 20:19-20" in very large letters.

"If this, and the various other reports of anti-Iraqi violence on the part of US troops are true, probably the US commanders are failing to keep the troops from taking out their resentments on the Iraqi."

If the orchard incident is true, it doesn't strike me as something *soldiers* would come up with. Rounding up bulldozers and systematically flatten a bunch of trees doesn't sound like drunken / resentful / rowdy behavior. It would almost certainly have to be the action of someone a bit higher up.

Someone who we can only hope will be looking forward to a post-military career guarding an office building at night.

Stefan--Whoever did this doesn't deserve to be guarding an office building at night, with clean air to breathe and a paycheck, however small, when it's over. If the story is true, these are war crimes, and should be punished as such.

"Whoever did this doesn't deserve to be guarding an office building at night."

I know, but with the way things are now, with a bunch of neocon schmucks deciding that the Geneva Convention is for other country's troops, a crappy civilian job might be the worst we can hope for these guys. :-(

Stefan: If the orchard incident is true, it doesn't strike me as something *soldiers* would come up with. Rounding up bulldozers and systematically flatten a bunch of trees doesn't sound like drunken / resentful / rowdy behavior. It would almost certainly have to be the action of someone a bit higher up.

Actually, it sounds a great deal like a bunch of soldiers who had specifically been ordered not to hurt PEOPLE because it would look bad.

More to the point, if it is policy, then it's a war crime. And last time I heard, officers were held responsible for the acts of those under their command.

I am a civilian lawyer and a military historian. As a lawyer I can say without doubt that this is illegal. As a military historian I can say without doubt this is idiocy. There are better ways to deal with guerillas than this and we are perfectly capable of winning this minor guerilla campaign. No guerilla movement has ever been sucessful without conventional help from some third party. The Spanish never would have been able to beat the French without British help, contrary to popular belief our revolution was not fought on guerilla terms but along conventional ones, the Viet Cong didn't beat us, the communist block did, and despite popular opinion to the contrary Fidel had outside help and only won in the end by confronting the government troop along conventional lines (ditto Mao). Here there is no true "outside" help along conventional lines. A few hundred soldiers killed a year is a perfectly acceptable casualty rate and we can bear it for a long time. But plowing under an individual's means of support doesn't translate into making him a good citizen. If this really happened a court martial needs to be convened, the sooner the better.

As an aside, my bet is that the folks screaming about casualties are the ones who not only never served and would never let their children serve, but are the same ones who view soldiers in other circumstances as beneath contempt.

Terry, "As an aside, my bet is that the folks screaming about casualties are the ones who not only never served and would never let their children serve, but are the same ones who view soldiers in other circumstances as beneath contempt. "

I have to say, this statement is quite obnoxious in its sweeping attempt to characterize the opinions of a broad array of people whom you don't know and have no idea what their circumstances are. Have you served in the military?

This is not collective punishment, it is removing the cover from which ambushes have been taking place.

The location in question are groves of trees that border a road that comes off a bridge.... in plain English, a ideal ambush site. You have no place to hide coming off the bridge and the bad guys can hide in the trees and them melt away. There had in fact been several ambushes at the site, because the road network almost mandated the use of the road. The farmers in question were given the chance to give the ambushers up and didn't. The local commander has a responsibility to protect his troops.

The farmers obviously either A). didn't know, or B). were too scared to mention who they thought it might be, since they'd have to be living next to these people for the rest of their (presumably very short) lives.

The local commander had several other options at his disposal. One was to simply station troops in the orchard. Another would be to build a bridge (as the army is set up to do, since bridges do get destroyed in wars) somewhere upstream or downstream where it would be a more secure position. It takes much less time to build a bridge than to regrow an orchard.

A question, however, Britton: You have detailed knowledge of the site, which I didn't find in the Independent article or various blogs. Could you give a link to the site where you found it?

The answer is yes. I faced my (un)fair share of "dogs and soldiers keep off the grass" attitude as well. It just seems to me that a great deal of the people I hear worrying over the saftey of our soldiers now are the same ones who insulted me to my face for being one. I didn't mean to insult anyone, especially someone I don't know. I apologize for making you feel insluted. It was not my intention.

Adam,

I didn't mean any harm to you either. And I'm glad you have changed your opinion of soldiers.

Besides which, it already appears to be standard US forces policy. I heard a KPFA broadcast recently--an interview with (full disclosure) the much maligned Fisk--and he mentioned that all the trees in an X mile radius of Baghdad international had been chopped down, and this being Baghdad, most of them were of course date and orange trees. This was done so people couldn't take shoulder-launched missiles there easily and blow up planes.

Now, much as I like a nice palm-lined boulevard, I can see the practicality in this, and it's not as if most of those palm and orange trees were what people were surviving on.

However, cutting down the trees that people depend on for their food and livelihood is a different thing altogether. And since they'd already whacked down all the trees around the airport, obviously someone decided that whacking down the orchard would be okay too. Or at least something they could get away with.

If it turns out to be false, I will personally be quite happy to know it.

Indeed, I've already noted more than once in this thread that wars are always full of flawed or misleading reportage.

I have a question of my own.

What gives with this business of dropping in to demand that people prove that they're not hypocrites? To expand on my remarks to Terry Hoover over his insinuation that (unspecified) people hereabouts wouldn't normally care about American soldiers, I have a record going back decades of being interested in military issues and concerned for the well-being of our soldiers. Other commenters around here are serving military or ex-military themselves. Hoover's remarks may describe somebody, but there was no call for that insinuation around here.

However, at least Terry Hoover used his name and provided a real email address. And came back later to clarify his remarks--the action of an actual human being who wants to exchange views. Folks who act like Terry Hoover are welcome to post here any old time.

By contrast, it's hard to understand why I should feel obliged to defend my intellectual or moral honor to someone who posts under the pseudonym "Alaska Jack" and gives an email address of "invalid@domain.com".

Jack, that seems like a silly question. If you believe something, based on a variety of evidence, and a new piece of evidence supporting your belief comes along, then obviously:

A: If the new evidence turns out to be true, it will strengthen your belief.

B: If the new evidence turns out to be false, it won't affect your belief, which is still supported by all the previous evidence, UNLESS the falsehood is one that suggests the earlier evidence might similarly be false.

So if it turns out that the orchard-destruction story was made up by a small cabal of reporters who also made up all the other stories about bad things happening in Iraq, then yes, that would affect my opinion.

However, I think it's unlikely (though possible) that the story will turn out to be a complete fabrication. It's relatively rare that news stories are completely falsified; it's very common for them to be spun or twisted in one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if the orchard-destruction story turns out to have been skewed; several posters here have given suggestions of possible skewing. It's possible that there are reasons, not reported in the original story, that the orchard destruction was either more warrented than it appears, or less destructive than was claimed. However, it's also possible that the story downplayed the situation, and it was actually worse. In the absence of any information one way or the other, it's sort of silly to speculate.

2. I tried to submit my piece without *any* e-mail address, but the website software won't accept that. So instead of making up a fake address (kevin@nonsequitur.com, for example) I used the universal address (invalid@domain.com) for one who does not wish to accept e-mail. Again, so?

3. You answered your own question.
a. "It appears to be standard U.S. forces Policy"
b. "all the trees in an X mile radius of Baghdad international had been chopped down"
c. "However, cutting down the trees that people depend on for their food and livelihood is a different thing altogether."

Well, which is it? Is cutting down trees that people depend on for food standard U.S. forces policy, or is it a different thing altogether?

Anyway, you say you seriously doubt that the story is false. Fine. But that's not what I asked. I asked if, in your mind, it would change anything if it turned out to be TRUE.

"Well, which is it? Is cutting down trees that people depend on for food standard U.S. forces policy, or is it a different thing altogether?"

Destroying agriculture that people depend on for food, except in certain extraordinary and very limited circumstances, is a violation of the Geneva Convention. So are punishments meted out to whole populations in order to compel the cooperation of a few. They are emphatically not part of standard US military policy or doctrine, as anyone with a nodding knowledge of American warcraft knows perfectly well.

Yes, these things have happened at times. Yes, they deserve the closest scrutiny when they do. Be nice if we had a press instead of a steno pool...

I'm not going to spend too much time on this: It's obvious you have your opinions, and I have mine, and I doubt there is much any of us can say that would sway the others. But let me just point out a few journalistic "red flags" in the article in question. THESE DO NOT MEAN THAT THE ARTICLE IS FALSE. They are simply things that would engender skepticism in the careful reader.

3. "as part of a new policy of collective punishment..." Why haven't we heard about this new policy anywhere else, except this single article?

4. We only learn toward the end of the article that this supposedly took place "in the second half of last month." In other words, this is all hearsay -- the reporter doesn't actually know any of it for a fact. The fact that a responsible reporter would have made this clear in the lede (instead of burying in the article) only makes it more suspicious.

5a. In terms of verification from the American side, there is only a single quote.
5b. And that was taken, not from the source, but *from another newspaper*. In other words, what journalists call secondary sourcing. That might not strike you as strange, but it certainly would strike a journalist that way.
5c. Also, no first name, no unit, no explanation of what this person's authority is ... sense a pattern? In other words, in order to get the whole story, and affirm its accuracy, the Independent reporter didn't do *just a little* followup on this -- he did *none whatsoever*.

6. What the heck, I'll toss in a few irrelevancies for conspiracy theorists:
a) The quoted newspaper, Iraq Today, is bankrolled by a British firm.
b) One of the quotes on its website praising it comes from ... Robert Fisk.
c) From the website: "Iraq Today stands for the interests of the people of Iraq, and their right to govern themselves ... Iraq is ruled by a largely English-speaking occupying force ... Although a few [of the staff] are professional journalists, most are not."

Again, none of this proves the story false. But it does make it strange that so many of you seem to feel certain it is probably true.

Whichever, Jeremy has already eloquently answered that question; I feel as he does in regards to this.

For that matter, I share Patrick's sentiments about anonymous cowards.

As for your other question, to put a finer point on it, there are trees that people gain their livelihood from, and trees that are ornamentals, but with much of this, it depends on where the tree is planted.

I live in San Jose, California, a city not unlike Baghdad in that it has palm-lined boulevards, old citrus trees and an international airport.

I pick lemons off the tree in my back yard. I do not dodge traffic to pick dates off the palm trees in the median strips downtown.

I have thirteen fruit trees in my back yard, ten of which I planted myself, and two of those when I was a child. My livelihood does not depend on them, but I can understand some fraction of what those farmers are feeling.

Jack, some good points about hints that the story may not be what it seems. I had wondered about the jazz, myself, but I'm not sure if that makes the story more or less plausible; if I were making it up, I would have said rock, or maybe rap. Of course, then you get into the whole "Sicilian strategy" issue of implausible details being inserted in a fictional story to make it more plausible, and so their implausibility is once again evidence for the story's falsehood.

I think Kevin was saying that cutting down trees was in some circumstances standard US policy (for instance ornamental trees around Baghdad Airport), but that cutting down trees people depend on for food is "another thing entirely".

It may be a case of poor wording, but the words used clearly denote that Mr. Murphy believes that "the story" (U.S. forces chopping down trees upon which farmers depend for their livelihood) "already appears to be standard U.S. forces policy." Note that he is not alone in this: The writer of the article claims this as well (though he offers no evidence to support the extraordinary claim).

May I ask a question about the "Anonymous Coward" bashing that goes on in this forum?

The web software asks for a name. But -- and I hope I'm not belaboring the obvious here -- it doesn't do anything to verify it. One who wanted to remain anonymous could simply type Bill Jones or Fred Smith -- or adamssj -- into the "Name" field.

Since none of you know me anyway, what difference does it make whether you refer to me as Jack, or Antwan, or Rachel, or Chief Slippery Snake. The salient point is that *I'm not pretending to be someone else.* Other than that, who cares? In fact, I have a shameful confession -- my name's not even actually Jack; it's John.

To anyone who *does* care: I suggest you scour your shelves for anything by "George Orwell." Or "Mark Twain." Or "Richard Bachman." Or John "Wyndham." Or "Lewis Carroll." Or "Voltaire." Or "Charlotte Bronte." Frauds, the lot of 'em.

Experience teaches that us the Anonymous Cowards of the world are generally just that. Sure, there are exceptions--oh, you missed one: Linda Lovelace was not Deep Throat--but note that many (perhaps all) of those people above had reasons for their pseudonymity. Do you have any such reason, other than fear of standing behind with your words?

I doubt it very much.

Twain was a public person who took an interesting pen name. "Richard Bachman" was maximizing his market value. I could go on and on--hell, I was Johnnie Zip in the glorious days of punk rock--oh, yes, you also missed the Fab Four: Sid Vicious, Johnny Rotten, Elvis Costello, and Ringo Starr--and many places I'm JZip. My first UNIX logon was adamsj, and I'm him, too. Identifiably.

Who are you? Why, look--you're nobody.

P.S. I take it all back if you're Thomas Pynchon. Drop by, sign some books--all will be forgiven.

I don't know why it's necessary to go into elaborate contortions to see what you can read into my words when you can just ask me.

What I meant was what Jeremy took from it:

I think Kevin was saying that cutting down trees was in some circumstances standard US policy (for instance ornamental trees around Baghdad Airport), but that cutting down trees people depend on for food is "another thing entirely".

Removing brush, etc. in order to secure a site is standard military procedure, and also US policy. It sometimes goes overboard. (cf. Agent Orange)

My point is that since it was okay to chop down the palm trees around the airport, and apparently okay to douse huge swatches of Vietnam with herbacide, somebody who hadn't bothered to read the Geneva convention lately (Rumsfeld?) decided it would be no big deal to bulldoze a few orchards while they were at it.

My bet is that the army will SAY it was to deny guerillas cover, as opposed to punishing the farmers for failing to rat out the guerillas, but "If you fail to tell us who the guerillas are, we will be forced to bulldoze these trees" sounds an awful lot like a threat to my ears.

AJ: I think some of the people here may be overreacting to your perceived anonymity, but I can understand why. I think most of us view this blog and its comments as a sort of community and, historically, people who've been concerned to conceal their identities have not had the best interests of community at heart. There are some people who post here regularly who use pseudonyms, but most of them have been here long enough to be known and trusted. Or are known from another community and thus not unfamiliar. You do see, don't you, how people might be suspicious of someone who first shows up attacking the views of the blogger and his commentators while concealing his identity? Many of us have seen communities disintegrate around us and have no desire to do so again. Can make for a bit of paranoia.

I'm going to get off this anonymity thing too. But allow me a few parting points:

1. It's interesting that adamsj uses /. as an example, considering that I post there as Alaska Jack as well. Actually, come to think of it, I post everywhere as Alaska Jack. I've never really considered it that meaningful, but in this context perhaps it is.

2. Please note that I didn't "attack" anyone or anything, except perhaps an appallingly low level of journalistic professionalism on the part of the Independent reporter.

3. Again, I'm not *concealing* my identity. I *am* from Alaska, and my name *is* Jack. It's not the name on my birth certificate, but I doubt "adamsj" is on anyone's either.

4. I completely sympathize with your desire to maintain a certain tradition in your community. But if that is your priority, perhaps it would be best accomplished via a private mailing list or something of that nature. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, merely pointing out that a public comments section invites, well, public comment, and at least some of those are bound to come from those who are unaware of, do not care about and/or actively dislike those traditions.

5. I certainly do *not* have the best interests of this community at heart. How's that for being upfront? Bombs away! :^)

As for adamsj, his reply is so full of non-sequiturs and unsupported assumptions I don't know where to begin, so I won't. Cheers!

Your argument was that a drive-by posting under an assumed name was somehow equivalent to a life's work under a pen name. I thought that silly and answered it in kind. (I wish I'd substituted Jello Biafra for Sid Vicious.) I pointed out my own pseudonymous writing in order to emphasize that it isn't pseudonymity itself which I mistrust, but the way in which you are pseudonymous.

Note also what it says right there on the page, above the comments field:

"Post a comment.
"(Real e-mail addresses and URLs only, please.)"

You are correct to point out that the e-mail addresses aren't verified. What you miss is that by ignoring that rather polite request you tell us something about yourself.

It's not that you are "pretending to be someone else". It's that you aren't being anyone.

Actually, I'd like Alaska Jack's email just so I can send a supportive remark. Oh well. :-)

To Mary Kay - apparently there is a community here that feels comfortable using their emails, real names, etc. However, it's not hard for an obnoxious person to take an email address and forward it to spam organizations. It also takes a while to build a level of trust with the people in any group.

Clearly there are people here who feel that one tree cut down - for whatever reason - is too many. I love woodworking, and I've been involved in homebuilding (which, sad to say occasionally means that somewhere a tree has to be cut). The ELF or EarthFirster who reads this post might immediately assume that I'm public enemy #1.

In any event, the article didn't say the farm was completely destroyed. It didn't say how far back the trees were cut (just "a kilometer stretch of road"). If I owned the farm, I'd certainly want compensation. But while at first glance this article provokes outrage (even among the most conservative blogsites I read), reading it again with a jaundiced eye reveals points that demand a healthy dose of skepticism. Other than references to the tree stumps, the article seems to rely solely on hearsay evidence. Why no comment from a US spokesman?

AlaskaJack, if you do not wish to use your "real" e-mail address, there are various resources available. I have a livejournal: the e-mail address I use here is the one livejournal provides, and the handle I use here is the same one I use on livejournal. You can also get a Yahoo.com e-mail address fairly easily, and use it consistently. People can get in touch with you, but you don't need to give them any information about yourself - a concern I appreciate.

What? Are you under the impression that Jenin is in the United States? (And clearly you are a Fox News freeper if you can describe a newspaper like the Independent as "sensationalistic" or "consistently anti-US".)

2. U.S. soldiers playing jazz?

That part is weird, I will admit.

3. "as part of a new policy of collective punishment..." Why haven't we heard about this new policy anywhere else, except this single article?

Because many things about US military actions in Iraq are not being fully reported?

4. We only learn toward the end of the article that this supposedly took place "in the second half of last month." In other words, this is all hearsay -- the reporter doesn't actually know any of it for a fact. The fact that a responsible reporter would have made this clear in the lede (instead of burying in the article) only makes it more suspicious.

In short, what is witnessed only by Iraqis cannot really have happened. (Same goes for 5a and 5b.)

6. What the heck, I'll toss in a few irrelevancies for conspiracy theorists:
a) The quoted newspaper, Iraq Today, is bankrolled by a British firm.

And it's well known that the UK is viciously anti-American.

b) One of the quotes on its website praising it comes from ... Robert Fisk.

Gosh.

c) From the website: "Iraq Today stands for the interests of the people of Iraq, and their right to govern themselves ...

Which is highly suspicious. Because clearly a reliable Iraqi newspaper would stand for the interests of the American neocons, and their right to govern Iraq.

Iraq is ruled by a largely English-speaking occupying force ...

And your problem with Iraq Today pointing this out is....?

Although a few [of the staff] are professional journalists, most are not."

Er... and your problem with this is...? Oh yes, I forgot: as for 4, 5a, and 5b, if it's being reported by Iraqis it didn't really happen.

You know, I'd vote with "misidentification" in this instance. Ever since I read a Time magazine article in the 80s, which labeled The Police as "punk rock" (aparently because Sting had a spiked haircut or something).

My guess is that it was probably rap/hip-hop, with "jazz" being used a quick catch-word for "african-american music," this reported by farmers who were more concerned with the troops bulldozing their orchards than correct identification of the musical genre played on the boombox.

Or maybe it was jazz. There's no law that says all soldiers have to listen to rock, rap or country.

I have one observation and one question. The observation is that the article in question has no confirmation by the US Military as to the reason for the destruction of the grove. The statements about collective punishment and so on were entirely from iraqis. The only quote from an American is not necessarily connected to the subject of the story. I dunno if the story's being spun or not, but it could be a lie by omission, one of the favorite forms of lying used by the media on all sides. The thing about media spin is that everybody does it. I don't feel like I ever know what's going on, for certain. Despite motivation or threat, though, I'm betting the troops didn't have any idea the magnitude of their actions.

My question is, does anyone know how land rights work and how orchards are planted and maintained in Iraq? A number of the comments here appear to assume that they use the same sort of system used in the West, with ownership determined by boundaries set geographically. Doesn't Iraq have a number of tribes that used to be nomads? In a desert world, I think that trees would live in only limited places, like along the rivers. Perhaps the families own the trees, not the land?

It appears that farmers in Iraq, or at least the ones who lost the orchards, own them in the exact same way that farmers do in the US.

While doing a search for "orange groves" + Iraq, I turned up a much more in depth article than the Independent ran, including interviews and photographs.

We are talking a hell of a lot more trees than just a few around a bridge: But for Khalil and his neighbors, the destruction of more than 25,000 square meters (30,000 sq. yards) of palm groves and fruit trees by U.S. forces which farmers said were feeding around 500 people is inexcusable.

"They came in last week without prior notice, cut off the main road and worked for three days and three nights to destroy our plantations with their bulldozers," recalled farmer Fida' Shehab.

I could tell that this web log attracted "Lefties", as you put it. The vast majority of my friends fall into that particular mind set and perhaps it was them I was venting about rather than the visitors here. I suppose it is just a reaction on my part that whenever I hear someone going on about "our boys" and casualties and so forth I tend to get defensive. Where were all those kind hearts when I needed them?

I'm sorry the rest of my original post was ignored and it is certainly my fault for adding that "aside" at the end. If this turns out to be true, and I'm not sure it will (pictures can lie as easily as words), the basic point I made still holds. A court martial needs to be convened. You don't make good citizens by destroying their livelyhoods. My other basic point still holds as well. We can win this campaign if we conduct it properly.

A lot of those "kind hearts" were either not born or of age when you served.

I'm not certain why you're doubting the story so much. The second article gives a lot more specifics, and it's not as if our forces in this conflict haven't already ignored other portions of the Geneva code.

I think "conduct it properly" is the heart of the matter. This isn't conducting it properly.

Actually a lot of them are my contemporaries. My service may not have been at the time and place you are assuming, but those details are not important.

Thanks for addressing the other part of my post. Counter insurgency calls for differing tactics and strategies than conventional fighting.

As for violating the Geneva Convention I'm not sure I agree that we have been systematic in doing so, but I understand other's disagreeing on that point. But I will point out that most people in the conduct of their everyday lives don't live 100% by the rules. How many people obey every posted and unposted traffic regulation on their ways into and from work? How many times has someone found a dollar or two on the ground and just pocketed it when the law (common law that is) calls for them to make an attempt to find the true owner? Don't get started on income tax returns. I'm not equating these instances with war crimes, just pointing out that a lot of people have difficulty obeying the rules under rather pedestrian circumstances so imagine trying to do so under fire. We must be vigilant in enforcing those rules because they involve people's lives, but we can't be draconian in doing so. Enough said on that.

Again, if it's true this needs to be the subject of a court martial. Again, the sooner the better.

It depends on what you mean by "systematic." I doubt that Rumsfeld used the Geneva code as a checklist of things to violate, but by the same token, I'm pretty certain the various folk in charge were not drilled in the code as "what not to do." At least judging by the violations regarding not letting the Red Cross see captives in the accepted timeframe and whatnot.

Pointing out misdemeanors and trivial infractions of common law is a distraction, and you should know it. No one cares about people returning the odd dollar found on the street because the amount is too trivial to bother with. You find a million dollars, however, you are held liable for not returning it to the proper owners. Likewise, soldiers picking a few oranges, or even the one who pinched Salam Pax's dad's scotch (check his blog) are not worth getting upset over apart from calling them assholes and getting on with your life; bulldozing an orchard, however, is a different order of magnitude. Ruining someone's afternoon and ruining someone's life are two different things.

Besides which, the orchard wasn't bulldozed in the middle of a firefight. If you read the article, it took three days of concerted earthmoving. You don't do that on accident, or even without consideration. And it's not even a vaguely pardonable or understandable crime, as with the soldier geared up to go in and take on a house full of terrorists, only to find nothing more suspicious than a newly remodeled kitchen, and a bottle of scotch sitting there ready and convenient. Easy temptation: Damn, I need a drink, and damn, I deserve one too. Plus the fairly secure knowledge that you won't do any worse harm than ruin someone's afternoon.

Doesn't lessen the harshness of this incident, but I found Jonathan Adler's post at NRO interesting:

Other readers accept the story, but suggest it omitted key details -- something I am willing to believe. For instance, Joseph Frye comments

I have been in contact with an officer in the Thai army that has provided myself and others with some information regarding this practice (though perhaps not this particular instance) via Thai military operating with the Coalition in Iraq.

While the jist of the story is correct, important and relevant details are left out. It seems that Iraqi "resistance" fighters are using orchards and such as cover to launch attacks on Coalition forces traveling on roads passing near the trees. American commanders are reluctant to destroy private property, so they offer the orchard owners a choice. They may provide information on the attackers themselves and allow American forces to pursue and destroy them, clearly the desirable option, or have the orchards near the road destroyed, thus making it more difficult for the resistance to find cover from which to launch attacks.

If the owner is unable or unwilling to help, the Americans have little choice but to destroy the orchards. If the owners are unable to provide the information requested, this is certainly sad, but ultimately necessary. Mercian forces must be allowed to defend themselves and make their environment safer. Clearly some Iraqis may walk away from such experiences feeling that they have been blackmailed and subjected to collective punishment, but that's not the whole -or real- story.